[Bug fortran/30720] runtime: check for empty array slices before allocating a negative amount of memory
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-09 20:31 --- Subject: Bug 30720 Author: fxcoudert Date: Fri Feb 9 20:31:18 2007 New Revision: 121773 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121773 Log: PR fortran/30720 * trans-array.c (gfc_trans_create_temp_array): Remove use of the function argument. Always generate code for negative extent. Simplify said code. * trans-array.h (gfc_trans_create_temp_array): Change prototype. * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_function_call): Remove use of last argument of gfc_trans_create_temp_array. * trans-intrinsic.c (gfc_conv_intrinsic_array_transfer): Likewise. * trans-stmt.c (gfc_conv_elemental_dependencies): Likewise. * gfortran.dg/array_function_1.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_1.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.h trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30720
[Bug fortran/30720] runtime: check for empty array slices before allocating a negative amount of memory
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-07 17:52 --- Hi FX, do you remember why always performing that check (ie, turn function to be always true) is not the right thing to do? When working on this, I hit numerous testsuite regressions when always checking for negative extents, and I couldn't find out why. So I only fixed the code path for the particular PR. If you find something that works without that argument (which is a bit of a kudge), so much the better. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30720
[Bug fortran/30720] runtime: check for empty array slices before allocating a negative amount of memory
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-07 19:10 --- (In reply to comment #5) If you find something that works without that argument (which is a bit of a kudge), so much the better. The patch I attached removes this argument, and it gives no regression on the testsuite. I also simplified the conditional expression by using a COND_EXPR instead of generating different blocks. Would you mind looking at it to see if you spot anything odd? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30720
[Bug fortran/30720] runtime: check for empty array slices before allocating a negative amount of memory
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-07 20:49 --- (In reply to comment #6) The patch I attached removes this argument, and it gives no regression on the testsuite. I also simplified the conditional expression by using a COND_EXPR instead of generating different blocks. Would you mind looking at it to see if you spot anything odd? From eyballing the patch, it looks OK. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30720
[Bug fortran/30720] runtime: check for empty array slices before allocating a negative amount of memory
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 20:34 --- Confirming this bug (both of them, actually). For the missed-optimization, I think there's no reason to keep a library function _gfortran_internal_free(x) that is equivalent to if(x) free(x);, we should generate that code directly. -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Keywords||missed-optimization, wrong- ||code Known to fail||4.3.0 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-02-06 20:34:23 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30720
[Bug fortran/30720] runtime: check for empty array slices before allocating a negative amount of memory
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 21:00 --- The wrong-code bug happens in gfc_trans_create_temp_array. For some reason, the function argument to that function is false, and the code present to take care of negative extent is not triggered. Thomas, you're the one who introduced this argument: 2006-06-15 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] * trans-array.h (gfc_trans_create_temp_array): Add bool argument. * trans-arrray.c (gfc_trans_create_temp_array): Add extra argument function to show if we are translating a function. If we are translating a function, perform checks whether the size along any argument is negative. In that case, allocate size 0. do you remember why always performing that check (ie, turn function to be always true) is not the right thing to do? -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30720
[Bug fortran/30720] runtime: check for empty array slices before allocating a negative amount of memory
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 23:13 --- To keep things separate, I filed PR30723 for the missed optimization. -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|missed-optimization | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30720
[Bug fortran/30720] runtime: check for empty array slices before allocating a negative amount of memory
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 23:16 --- Created an attachment (id=13018) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13018action=view) Patch for this bug Here's the patch I propose. It makes the code simpler by using a cond_expr instead of using different statement blocks. Regtested in an earlier version on i686-linux, regtesting of the current version in progress. -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30720
